Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] FW: Discussion paper

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Interesting paper.  Though I think it might be premature to discuss  
solution options before we have all agreed on the problem.
One aspect i don't understand is how to get around the 'picket fence  
imperative'  where changing someone's material contractual conditions  
can be done without fair representation.
Another thing that i do not agree with is the denigration of the value  
of nomcom appointees to merely ballast.    While that is an important  
consideration, especially as long as a picket fence imperative  
remains, i think they (ok, we) also serve the purpose of bringing in  
outside views and of making the policy group something other then just  
an insiders body. I know that on the board, the existence of nomcom  
appointees serves as some sort of argument against anti-trust  
accusations.  I would think the same would apply to a policy council.
a.

On 1 Jul 2008, at 11:34, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:

> From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:14 AM
> To: 'gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Discussion paper
> As discussed briefly on Council it may be helpful to list what seems  
> to have arisen as the concerns that constituencies have with regard  
> to change in GNSO structure. It would be helpful to validate this  
> list with the group in order to work at solutions that address the  
> concerns. Some options are also mentioned that may be worth  
> discussing.
> Please see the attached paper.
>
>
> Philip
>
> <Options paper consensus wg.doc>